The Dalai Lama is scheduled to leave today following a six-day visit comforting victims of Typhoon Morakot. The trip has provided a timely reminder of the increasing sway Beijing holds over many things, from the way the international media reports on certain subjects to Taiwanese politics and politicians.
One of the clearest examples of the former was the disproportionate amount of coverage given to a token number of pro-unification protesters who have followed the Nobel peace laureate.
Any neutral person watching or reading these reports from abroad may have received the impression that pro-China views are in the ascendancy in Taiwan, yet polls show that support for unification is less popular than even independence, at about 7 percent or 8 percent.
While this kind of trashy, low-cost reportage is understandable from certain sections of the domestic media, such protests would receive little or no attention in other countries. The activities of this rag-tag bunch received far more coverage than they deserved. One would expect the international press to do a better job.
While many international media groups reported on the protests, almost all neglected to mention the mandatory subtext to the story: Many of the demonstrations had been organized by a fugitive pro-unification gangster on the lam in China who once cooperated with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government to eliminate dissidents.
Time magazine even went so far as to describe the protests as “Taiwan’s raucous democracy,” a statement that deserves extensive qualification.
Taiwan’s relationship with China is an important issue that attracts news editors around the globe because of the dramatic headlines it provides, but editors shouldn’t let a good story get in the way of the truth. Some facts about the background of these protesters would have provided readers with a balanced story.
We also look forward to the day that the international press stops framing the Taiwan issue in Beijing’s terms.
Another inconvenient truth revealed by the visit is just how much the KMT and its politicians are in the pocket of Beijing. Not one KMT official or politician had the courage to meet the Dalai Lama — an all-too clear demonstration of where the party’s loyalties lie.
These elected representatives pandered to Beijing’s whims by shunning a figure idolized by the majority of the people he represents.
How the KMT can continue to claim to represent Taiwan when its first reaction on domestic issues is to solicit China’s advice is beyond comprehension.
But it’s not all bad news. One thing we can be thankful for, even in the face of reams of pro-China propaganda and falsehoods in the pro-unification media, is that the majority of Taiwanese are still able to recognize the Dalai Lama for what he is: a peace-loving religious leader who has been demonized by a malevolent, authoritarian power.
Who knows? Perhaps this clarity of judgment may soon extend to the KMT itself.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS